1. Comment #191656 by Synchronium on June 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Good to see the issue being discussed on telly. Not watched it yet though. Anyone got a direct download link?

Other Comments by Synchronium

2. Comment #191661 by Raiko on June 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I wonder how telling it is that my work computer shuts down firefox whenever I try to view this. O_o

Other Comments by Raiko

3. Comment #191664 by BigJohn on June 11, 2008 at 12:19 pm

The video will not play for me. The screen comes up but it just sits there saying 'loading video'. I even signed up to the site but no joy there either.

EDIT: Got it working! My browser was blocking belointeractive.com

Other Comments by BigJohn

4. Comment #191668 by catskill on June 11, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Video plays for me using WinXP-SP3 and Firefox2. Nothing new here as far as content. The guy defending the 'academic freedom' bill comes off as a weasel.

Other Comments by catskill

5. Comment #191673 by Dax on June 11, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Why is it that all those foundations with "Family" in the title are usually detrimental to the kids in the families?

Other Comments by Dax

6. Comment #191675 by JamesDB on June 11, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Hah i liked listening to her tell it like it is. Her saying its creationism in disguise was right on and that guy was sidestepping the whole debate. How has this bill gone so far already, can't it be stopped before it goes through?

Other Comments by JamesDB

7. Comment #191677 by mcadamsdj on June 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

The Louisiana Family Forum...Defending the teaching of science in the classroom since...well, never.

Other Comments by mcadamsdj

8. Comment #191681 by sane1 on June 11, 2008 at 12:50 pm

ID - IS NOT SCIENCE.
CREATIONISM - IS NOT SCIENCE
Worse, both are just stupidity. Good thing this lady and others stand up to this!

Other Comments by sane1

9. Comment #191684 by phil rimmer on June 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Dork trolled

Other Comments by phil rimmer

10. Comment #191690 by Polydactyl on June 11, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Please, Josh, can't you remove that troll? He is very boring. Put him in a box somewhere else.

Other Comments by Polydactyl

11. Comment #191694 by Corylus on June 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

richard_dawkins

Sigh, some of us do attempt to have sensible conversations on here.

I would pat you on the head and tell you that 'it isn't big and it isn't clever', unfortunately, your dated references and idiom demonstrate that you are older than me and there is thus no hope for further growth.

There is a critical period for shrugging off such idiotic behaviour and I'm afraid you are well past it.

*Trolled and waiting for admin to deal.*

Other Comments by Corylus

12. Comment #191695 by Ultraviolet G on June 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

To fake richard_dawkins:

Please either get funny enough to be worth reading, or change your name. The real Richard is funnier.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

13. Comment #191699 by Prankster on June 11, 2008 at 1:16 pm

I thought guys like the spoof richard_dawkins only showed up on here on a Friday night-that was the usual night for such "comedians" to make an appearance-oh well.

Almost another wooter he's that good

Other Comments by Prankster

14. Comment #191702 by al-rawandi on June 11, 2008 at 1:20 pm

corylus,








I have yetti feet? That wasn't very nice!


Now I am really hurt....

Other Comments by al-rawandi

15. Comment #191705 by Corylus on June 11, 2008 at 1:31 pm

You'll live Al.

I least I didn't accuse you off covering them up with bunny slippers.

But then that's a nasty vegetarian, hippy, left wing habit - hell, I should know!

*waves feet and watches the floppy ears fly*

:P

Other Comments by Corylus

16. Comment #191713 by Zamboro on June 11, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I didn't mind the troll, it was moderately funny. The idea of dawkins presiding over the 'practice' of atheism and ordering us to "resume" it made me chuckle. "Proceed with the skepticism!"

Other Comments by Zamboro

17. Comment #191715 by Corylus on June 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Anyone else finding this video jerky with fluffy audio? (Sigh, probably just my awful connection).

If someone knows of an alternative link (youtube download) that would be great - thanks.

Other Comments by Corylus

18. Comment #191717 by 160261621c on June 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Fake Richard Dawkins, If wired magazine thought us humorless, then I cannot begin to imagine how much worse their criticism if it was your humor they judged.

Other Comments by 160261621c

19. Comment #191733 by black wolf on June 11, 2008 at 2:24 pm

The name "Louisiana Forum on Family" is misleadingly incomplete. The full title should read "Louisiana Forum on Families who want to live in Caves".

Other Comments by black wolf

20. Comment #191737 by stephenray on June 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Here's a prediction (fresh from my crystal ball).

This is not the last time we will hear the phrase "viewpoint discrimination".

It means nothing, but it sounds unfair; it's gonna pop up everywhere. "My viewpoint is being discriminated against blah blah blah..."

The reason it means nothing is that discrimination is the process of taking and implementing decisions about persons or people based on aspects that should not properly come into consideration - the colour of their skin, sexual orientation, national origin - because they are not generally within the person's control.

Someone's viewpoint, of course, is the thing over which they have absolute control. So if they want that viewpoint to prevail, they have to argue for it. If the argument fails, it's because other viewpoints were better.

You gotta admire the debating skills of whoever thought it up, though.

Other Comments by stephenray

21. Comment #191740 by dazzjazz on June 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Where do these right-wing religious groups get all these dorky white men from? I though he really evaded the accusations. The woman was correct to point out the existance of good science standards in education and that there is no need for a religious group to stick its nose in when they have no science credentials!

Best of luck with the bill.

Other Comments by dazzjazz

22. Comment #191742 by rod-the-farmer on June 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm

He comes across as really smooth. Doesn't have a case, of course, and won't respond to direct questions, but then he IS a politician.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

23. Comment #191746 by EvidenceOnly on June 11, 2008 at 3:04 pm

The LA Science Education Act is not about science and not about education. It is all a pretext to give liars for Jesus legal protection while teaching religion (believes for which no evidence exists) in science class where only theories and laws supported by overwhelming evidence should be thought.

In the same vain, the Discovery Institute is not about discovering anything. They proclaim GodDidIt and instead of resting their case with that ludicrous statement, they resort to mental terrorism and their target victims are students.

All religions know: get them while they are young.

It is child abuse.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

24. Comment #191747 by room101 on June 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm

stephenray #21:

Agreed. Just because someone has an opinion, viewpoint, or worse - a belief - doesn't warrant it's worthiness for consideration.

Unfortunately in todays' internet and 24/7 cable news world these beliefs and opinions are being considered worthy of discussion - and placed on an even level alongside researched and well-thought out theories - because, you know, we "have to be fair".

PS I like how this Mills tool kept referring to Dr. Forrest as "Ms. Barbara".

Other Comments by room101

25. Comment #191758 by Border Collie on June 11, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I was raised, by people like Gene Mills, in a fundamentalist Baptist "environment" in Texas. I simply cannot stand such people who are so smug and self-assured in their santimony. They always talk down to people with their little smirks on their faces. May I go on? Sorry for the venom, but I get emotional diarrhea when I listen to these creeps. They think that because they believe that God is on their side that they also can lie about their intentions and actions. I had to put up with their lies, duplicity, sanctimony and perversion until I was 17. I've not been to church since and don't miss it. He looks a lot like Warren Jeffs ... maybe he'll get caught with his britches down with a small child. I'm gonna go puke.

Other Comments by Border Collie

26. Comment #191761 by AoClay on June 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Reality discriminates a lot.

Other Comments by AoClay

27. Comment #191781 by ghuckin on June 11, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Re. Comment #191673 by Dax

Why is it that all those foundations with "Family" in the title are usually detrimental to the kids in the families?

Maybe it's for the same reason that Communist countries always felt it necessary to have the word "Democratic" in their name.

Other Comments by ghuckin

28. Comment #191783 by ghuckin on June 11, 2008 at 5:34 pm

By the way. Way to go, Barbara Forrest. Ice cool and very businesslike. Compare and contrast the demeanour of the same lady in the documentaries about Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board, after the win.
Here's a good one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R54LGX5_10
Here's another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnIoXPLMdo

Other Comments by ghuckin

29. Comment #191792 by utelme on June 11, 2008 at 6:54 pm

There is absolutely no need for this legislation other than to suit a creationist agenda. Any student can already ask his teacher about the evidence for and against evolution or any other scientific theory and nothing to stop the teacher from injecting their own views as long as they stick to established science and it's principles.

Other Comments by utelme

30. Comment #191795 by HourglassMemory on June 11, 2008 at 7:04 pm

All power to Barbara Forrest.

I wonder if out of all these cases that are spurting out here and there, there won't be one that will find some convoluted and twisted way that can get pass the legal issues that have been able to stop the previous ones.
And after that you get a flood of imitators, as if it was the offspring of the succesful "infiltration".
It starts sounding a lot like how natural selection works...

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

31. Comment #191801 by mordacious1 on June 11, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Gene Mills= mole. Still have my mallet in my hand.
whack whack whack WHACK. OOOO That last one got 'em.

Other Comments by mordacious1

32. Comment #191803 by mordacious1 on June 11, 2008 at 8:07 pm

ghuckin

Thanks for the link. How did I miss this, it is excellent, although parts of it made me cringe. I'd rather watch the scariest zombie movie, than watch a moronic creationist explain his views.

Other Comments by mordacious1

33. Comment #191805 by Goldy on June 11, 2008 at 8:37 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/l11evolution.html
I am astounded, really. Maybe we scientist should start making our presence felt in theology more.

Other Comments by Goldy

34. Comment #191893 by Laurie Fraser on June 12, 2008 at 4:19 am

I don't know, Goldy - debating with the stooges just seems to encourage them. I prefer H.L. Mencken's strategy: "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, raise the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

35. Comment #191911 by Cartomancer on June 12, 2008 at 5:13 am

A modest proposal eh? What that it were Swiftean satire!

I really do wonder what "academic freedom" has to do with "the family" too. Surely it should be teaching unions and academic publishing houses who agitate for legislation on academic matters? I think it would be a much more profitable endeavour to pass a law requiring all pressure groups with "family" in their name to replace it with "unreconstructed right-wing patriarchal bigotry" instead. The Louisiana Forum on Unreconstructed Right-Wing Patriarchal Bigotry. There, much better.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

36. Comment #191941 by Philip1978 on June 12, 2008 at 6:46 am

I am honestly confused

If Creationism is not about God, not part of the Christian Religious belief in their God having intellectual property rights to the start of the universe then what the bloody hell is it?

How on Earth can it BE anything else?

How does Gene get to dribble down the phone saying he is being misrepresented? What did Professor Forrest say that was wrong? Am I just too "atheist" to be able to hear dear old Gene?

Yay for Professor Forrest! She at least knows where her towel is, BRAVO!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

37. Comment #191945 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Philip - A suggestion:

Since creationism isn't about God, but an unprovable idea that there was a creation, we agree that it may be taught in schools, but insist that the creator be called "Janet".

They've already agreed that it isn't an equivocation about the nature of God, so they can't possibly object. Can they?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

38. Comment #191952 by Philip1978 on June 12, 2008 at 7:10 am

hungarianelephant

Janet? Do you want to incur the wrath of Quetz upon thee? Quick, repent and drink Tea before the Falcons turn up! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

39. Comment #191953 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 7:12 am

If Creationism is not about God, not part of the Christian Religious belief in their God having intellectual property rights to the start of the universe then what the bloody hell is it?

If the resurrection happened, then there had to be a "fall", which really does imply some kind of Eden-like state of the world before some species of Homo did the first naughty thing.

If not, what was the death and resurrection of Jesus for? One can't talk about dealing with the sin of Adam if Adam didn't exist, you know..

A belief in the resurrection is, at heart, creationist.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #191957 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 7:23 am

39. Comment #191953 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 7:12 am

If the resurrection happened, then there had to be a "fall", which really does imply some kind of Eden-like state of the world before some species of Homo did the first naughty thing.

If not, what was the death and resurrection of Jesus for? One can't talk about dealing with the sin of Adam if Adam didn't exist, you know.

I was recently told by a Catholic that the resurrection was part of the "central Christian message" that there is hope beyond death. So you don't need a literal fall.

Quite how this central message failed to be communicated in the rambling mess of the bible, or why most Christians would struggle to articulate it, or what the living bejesus "hope beyond death" means, was not specified.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

41. Comment #191969 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 12, 2008 at 7:48 am

If the resurrection happened, then there had to be a "fall", which really does imply some kind of Eden-like state of the world before some species of Homo did the first naughty thing.

If not, what was the death and resurrection of Jesus for? One can't talk about dealing with the sin of Adam if Adam didn't exist, you know..

A catholic priest dealing with that exact paradox.

Original Sin: A Disputation

Edward T. Oakes

Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 87 (November 1998) 16-24.

I've always wondered why this isn't rammed down the throats of moderate Christians who are fine with evolution. The evangelicals are right it is either straight up creationism or nothing.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

42. Comment #191992 by Purps on June 12, 2008 at 9:10 am

I only have sound on one ear... What the.. Only me or ? Sigh

Other Comments by Purps

43. Comment #192003 by severalspeciesof on June 12, 2008 at 9:43 am

41. Comment #191969 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I've always wondered why this isn't rammed down the throats of moderate Christians who are fine with evolution. The evangelicals are right it is either straight up creationism or nothing.

I've wondered about that myself, and as I was only able to skim the article you linked to (and from what I gathered it comes to 'a damned if there is original sin and damned if there is not') I've heard from many christians that although maybe Adam isn't literally a real person, it's that Adam represents the moment god decided to place a soul into humamnity, and that 'soul' is also a metaphor for freewill. At the moment we used freewill against god's will, is the moment that Christ's resurrection became inevitable/necessary. I' haven't scrutinized that particular way of thinking, but on the surface it seems to be an adequate (from the believer who also believes in evolution) rescue from their paradox.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

44. Comment #192009 by black wolf on June 12, 2008 at 9:54 am

Don't worry, Purps.
Same for me.

Other Comments by black wolf

45. Comment #192013 by mordacious1 on June 12, 2008 at 10:05 am

Purps

Sorry, they don't have stereo in LA yet. Probably never will if they teach ID in their schools instead of real science.

Other Comments by mordacious1

46. Comment #192023 by wagnerpe on June 12, 2008 at 10:33 am

Dumb dumb dumb. A perfect example of somebody who talks around the questions and a reporter who doesn't have the energy (or intelligence?) to give a reasonable answer. It leads people to believe that both sides have legitimate cases.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

47. Comment #192037 by kurzweilfreak on June 12, 2008 at 11:09 am

I live in Louisiana. I work right outside of New Orleans. My name is Brett Guillory. I've been seeing this go on. And it makes... me... sick.

They can explicitly say in the bill "Hey, this isn't about religion! Noooooo way. We won't allow it." But OF COURSE there's a wink wink, nudge nudge in there. Because..... WHY THE HELL else would this shit come up in the first place? Like Prof. Forrest said, our science curriculum is just fine. Science isn't a democratic process. The only ones who have a problem with it are these Christian organizations with "Family" in the name, promoting "fairness" and "critical thinking" (how ironic is that). Sure, this bill says "no religion here" but it still allows for "outside supplemental resources" to be brought in. Any bets on whether the intent is to allow teachers to assign "The Selfish Gene", or do they really mean "Of Pandas and People"?

They're just trying to make their encroachment more and more subtle until some ignorant ass passes it and then they can start working their way back up. They can say it's not about religion over and over and over again, but as is always the case with these religious zealots, the facts firmly show otherwise.

Other Comments by kurzweilfreak

48. Comment #192047 by blackmath on June 12, 2008 at 11:38 am

I wonder if the right-wing superchurches would mind atheistic views being expressed in their sunday schools on the the basis of non-"viewpoint discrimination"

Other Comments by blackmath

49. Comment #192262 by PaulJ on June 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Comment #191781 by ghuckin

Re. Comment #191673 by Dax

Why is it that all those foundations with "Family" in the title are usually detrimental to the kids in the families?

Maybe it's for the same reason that Communist countries always felt it necessary to have the word "Democratic" in their name.

Orwellian Newspeak - so very useful for propaganda.

Other Comments by PaulJ

50. Comment #192340 by Vecingetorix on June 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Has anyone else noticed that the media almost always gives the "last word" to the ID asshats and religious wingnuts? Dammit, that was my favorite local news channel.

Other Comments by Vecingetorix